The rules create a lot of inconvenience for individuals, and more work for companies. Demands that customers provide finance companies with originals or copies of documents which could be used for identity theft is likely to create more crime rather than prevent crime
These are overly onerous on companies and the public and create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and cost. They are applied to investments which are not conceivably of interest to money launderers (eg a small pension policy). Companies commonly ask individuals for several identity documents when there is any alteration to an account. There is no consistency between one company's rules and another. Providing these documents can be time wasting, and/or expensive.
For example an individual with a small endowment or pension policy might be asked to provide their passport or a copy of their passport certified as "original seen", as well as copies of household bills, in order to simply get their address changed. It is not longer easy to get a certified copy of a passport; banks refuse to do it, and solicitors will usually only do it for established clients. If the financial company concerned is one that does not have local branches (eg Britain's biggest insurer – Aviva), the customer is left with little option except send valuable documents through the post. This is not satisfactory, and likely to lead to identity theft.